Is the Political Glass Ceiling Broken, Cracked, or Intact?

[Invisible Chimp]

Hillary Clinton made remarks about "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling." Potential VPILF Palin referenced Hillary's remarks in her acceptance speech and also mentioned Ferraro's nom 20 years ago. I ask is the ceiling cracked or broken? I say broken, but I have a penis.

I say that it is broken because we had a female candidate who would have been the nominee except for another history making candidacy. We have a female Speaker of the House. And now we have a VP nom with a vagina (and a busy vagina at that. 5 kids!) Slightly over half of the delegates at the Dem Convention were female, matching their percentage in the general population. It seems like every time I watch the conventions there is a woman speaking.

Some would say no, since the Palin nom reeks of tokenism. They would argue that McCain only picked her because he thinks PUMA and its ilk will vote for Palin(and him) because of what is between her legs and not what is between her ears.

Some would say no, because of my sexist comments in this OP("VPILF," "busy vagina"),but I would say that's just me.

Others would say no, because Hillary did not get the nom, and will not be POTUS. I already argued that she would be the nom if Obama didn't represent even more of a history making candidacy. The next qualified woman to run will get the nom, IMO, and that is why it is broken. To me it is broken because feminism should be not voting for someone because they have a vagina, but voting for someone because of their stances on the issues regardless of whether they have a penis or vagina.

What says the Dope?

[Phlosphr]

What says the Dope?
It says I think you said vagina one too many times.








and yes, it's broken

[Quartz]

Was there actually a glass ceiling in the first place?

[madmonk28]

I think that the Republicans are running Palin in much the way the Democrats ran Geraldine Ferraro: as an attempt to generate some excitement and momentum in a pretty bleak election (bleak for the Republicans in 08; bleak for the Democrats in 84). So I don't see Palin's candidacy as particularly groundbreaking.

[Quartz]

I think that the Republicans are running Palin in much the way the Democrats ran Geraldine Ferraro: as an attempt to generate some excitement and momentum

Judging by the threads in GD, they've succeeded.

in a pretty bleak election (bleak for the Republicans in 08; bleak for the Democrats in 84).

Very true.

[tnetennba]

Was there actually a glass ceiling in the first place?

Yes.

[Eureka]

Cracked.

In regions of the country that have or have had female Senators, Representatives, and Governors, there is a general willingness to vote for a woman as President. Those areas have limited or no existing glass ceiling--although the women may still have problems getting into the "Old Boy's Club".

In regions of the country where no Senators, Representatives, or Governors have been female, there is a general disinclination to vote for a woman as President. In those areas, the Glass Ceiling is either intact or cracked.

Overall, I will not believe that the Glass Ceiling is gone until a sizeable fraction of Senators, Representatives, Governors and Presidential candidates are female. Sizeable fraction means at least 1/3.

(Note, I base these claims on something I heard on NPR back during the Primaries, when the question of whether whichever candidate won the Primary election would be viable in November was still under discussion. )

[Quartz]

Yes.

Cite? Just because people think there's one doesn't mean there actually is.

[Giles]

I agree with Eureka -- perfect equality has not yet been achieved, but we are moving closer to it. And every step -- including both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin -- helps.

Senator Clinton helped, because she didn't lose simply because she was a woman: she lost because she brought a fair bit of past history with her, including her husband, and because a younger, more charismatic candidate came along.

Governor Palin is an example of how it's become more common for women to be elected as state governors in their own right, and not just to fill their husband's shoes. And she's even an example of how, in some contexts, it is seen as advantageous to be a woman running for office. If she loses, she and Senator McCain won't lose because she's a woman, but because the other team is seen as being a better choice for reasons quite separate from gender (and race).

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will gender equality in the United States.

[Giles]

Cite? Just because people think there's one doesn't mean there actually is.

Let's count the number of female presidents of the US: 0.

Female VPs: 0.

Female Chief Justices: 0

Female Speakers of the House: 1 (out of 60).

I think there's a fair bit of empirical evidence there.

[JohnnieEnigma]

Hillary did a hella good job in cracking that ceiling, and I think Palin will continue where Hillary left off... or failed.

[John Mace]

Hillary did a hella good job in cracking that ceiling, and I think Palin will continue where Hillary left off... or failed.

Except that Hillary is the wife of a former president who never had a political career until Bill was out of office. She's a very intelligent and motivated person, and maybe she would have had a brilliant political career on her own, but we'll never know. I think that if someone is going to truly break the so-called glass ceiling, she has to do it on her own. Hillary has proven only that an ex-president's wife can run for the highest office in the land and be taken seriously. It's not her fault, of course, but the facts are the facts.

It's pretty obvious, too, that Palin is an affirmative action pick for VP and almost certainly wouldn't have been picked if she were a man. I'm looking for someone to break that glass ceiling on her own, but maybe that's just me...

[Quartz]

I think there's a fair bit of empirical evidence there.

I'm not sure any of those are valid. Were there better female candidates at the time?

Whatever happenned to being the best person for the job? If the best person is male, then that person should get the job; it's sexist to act otherwise. Clinton lost fair and square, Ferraro lost fair and square, Myers was offered but not appointed. Being female didn't stop Palin becoming a Governor and now VP candidate. Plenty of female judges. There are plenty of female bosses of firms. And so on.

[Yllaria]

Was there actually a glass ceiling in the first place?

When you say this, what do you mean by 'in the first place'? Do you mean this electoral cycle? If so, I'd say yes, it's still there, but I'd see it as debatable. If you really mean in the first place, though, there's no question the answer is yes.

[Yllaria]

. . . Were there better female candidates at the time? . . .
This is partly an artifact of a previous, much lower glass ceiling.

Part of the reason that the ceiling is called glass is that there's nothing really tangible to point to as the reason why X sort of person is not found in certain positions. How do you know when the intangible has become the absent? The most certain way to know that the glass ceiling for the US president is gone is the election of X sort of person to the presidency. That hasn't happened yet.

[Giles]

I'm not sure any of those are valid. Were there better female candidates at the time?
It's not just about choosing a candidate in the election, but about the whole process leading up to the election. Why did Franklin Roosevelt have a political career, when Eleanor Roosevelt (coming from the same family, and at least equally talented) did not. It's because women didn't have political careers, and the closest they could get was being the wife of a politician. Similarly, Hillary Rodham could have set out after college to be a politiican in her own right, but chose instead to marry a man with a career as state governor in his future. She wanted to be part of the action, but being a political wife was the best route back then.
Whatever happenned to being the best person for the job? If the best person is male, then that person should get the job; it's sexist to act otherwise.
Sure, but you also have to see that women are not offering themselves as candidates, even now, in the same numbers as men, and you also have to see that women have not reached the highest political office in the US. That's not because women are inferior to men: there are social reasons behind the imbalance, which continue to cause the imbalance.

[Kalhoun]

Cite? Just because people think there's one doesn't mean there actually is.

Heh-heh...you're a guy, right?

[Quartz]

Heh-heh...you're a guy, right?

Correct. And I've had my share of female bosses, both good and bad. I've seen women be promoted by being the best person for the job. And I've watched a number of my female friends and acquaintances work their way up the career ladder. I've seen Margaret Thatcher become PM. I saw Geraldine Ferraro campaign.

It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people's minds. It's the culture of victimhood.

[Jennyrosity]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission recent Sex and Power report said that women hold hold just 11% of FTSE 100 directorships and account for only 19.3% of MPs.

It goes on to say that in the 55 years it will take women to achieve equality in the senior judiciary, a snail could crawl nine times around the M25. The snail could get from Land's End to John O'Groats and halfway back again in the 73 years it will take for women to equal men as directors of FTSE 100 companies, and could almost manage the entire length of the Great Wall of China in the 200 years it will take for women to get equal representation in parliament.

A woman working full-time earns, on average, 14% less than a man in an equivalent job - for part-time workers, the gap increases to 34%.

Yes, the glass ceiling still exists.

[Quartz]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission recent Sex and Power report said that women hold hold just 11% of FTSE 100 directorships and account for only 19.3% of MPs.

But is that meaningful? Perhaps men are more suited to such jobs? I don't see anyone complaining about the lack of male nurses, for example. Didn't stop Margaret Thatcher rising to the top. Nor Anita Roddick. Nor Carly Fiorino. Nor Sarah Palin. Nor Dawn Primarolo, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor many others.

A woman working full-time earns, on average, 14% less than a man in an equivalent job - for part-time workers, the gap increases to 34%.

Ah yes, 'the equivalent job'. I don't have that report; what does it say about the same job?

Remember, equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result. You're surely not suggesting women be given preference, are you? That would be sexist.

[Captain Carrot]

Correct. And I've had my share of female bosses, both good and bad. I've seen women be promoted by being the best person for the job. And I've watched a number of my female friends and acquaintances work their way up the career ladder. I've seen Margaret Thatcher become PM. I saw Geraldine Ferraro campaign.

It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people's minds. It's the culture of victimhood.
Bull. In business, you have to convince the people who control promotions and hirings that you're qualified for the job, and that's not going to be a whole lot of people most of the time. In politics, you have to convince the voting public that you're the right person, and that's a much more difficult task.

[Jennyrosity]

But is that meaningful? Perhaps men are more suited to such jobs? I don't see anyone complaining about the lack of male nurses, for example. Didn't stop Margaret Thatcher rising to the top. Nor Anita Roddick. Nor Carly Fiorino. Nor Sarah Palin. Nor Dawn Primarolo, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor many others.

So us women should just know our place and stick to the jobs we're "more suited to"? Girls consistently out-perform boys throughout the education system, yet this is not reflected in the workplace. As for the examples you've given, there will always be trailblazing women who will smash barriers for us, just as there are in every under-represented group, thank God. But it shouldn't be that hard - the barriers shouldn't be there to be smashed in the first place. Sarah Palin is only the second women to ever stand for VP. Margaret Thatcher is still the only female Primer Minister we've ever had. Surely, if there were no glass ceiling, some other smart, talented woman would have come before them?

Anyway, I'm out now. I suspect arguing gender equality with Quartz is the very definition of "pointless".

[Marley23]

Some would say no, because of my sexist comments in this OP("VPILF," "busy vagina"),but I would say that's just me.
I'd say your OP didn't prove anything but was really off-putting.

How many female presidents have there been? If the answer is still zero, this glass ceiling still exists. I think it's that simple. The interplay between gender and politics and public perception is about as complicated as anything this side of M-theory, however. Hillary Clinton's baggage definitely played a role in her loss. But what created that baggage? The public perception of her as a calculating, domineering harpy with a heart of stone played a factor and I think she is viewed more negatively than a male politician with a similar history would be. Would any other politician, male or female, have been accused of pretending to cry like she was? How much of the problem was her personality, how much was her last name, how much was her gender... there's no way to conclusively measure this stuff, in my opinion. Female politicians on a national level are still new enough that they're considered something of a novelty, and they get a bit more of the celebrity treatment than most male Senators and Governors do. I suppose that will even out to a larger extent over time.

The next qualified woman to run will get the nom, IMO, and that is why it is broken.
Who's qualified? Let's say definitively "these women are qualified" and see if they get nominated a few years (4, 8, even 12) down the line.

[Yllaria]

. . . It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people's minds. It's the culture of victimhood.
Where else has the glass ceiling been, but in people's minds? The glass ceiling is a metaphor that was powerful enough to seep into common usage against the pressure of an opposing idea: that women were just whining and saying they were vicitms of society when the fact was that they just weren't up to the job.

From the beginning, there have been arguments that there is/was no such thing as a glass ceiling. Do you believe that there ever was a glass ceiling, anywhere? Just curious.

[Quartz]

So us women should just know our place and stick to the jobs we're "more suited to"?

Rubbish.

Girls consistently out-perform boys throughout the education system, yet this is not reflected in the workplace.

I think there are two factors here: firstly the education system is slanted towards girls - just as it was slanted towards boys earlier. They've yet to find the right medium. Secondly, girls mature faster than boys.

Oh yes, women do tend to go off and have children. Taking time out for this puts them behind men, but it's a choice women make. As do some men. I'm in a similar situation myself, having taken a year off to care for my aunt. I'm now looking at a £5K salary drop.

Margaret Thatcher is still the only female Prime Minister we've ever had.

There have only been 3 PMs since, the firs being Thatcher's designated successor, and the third was the heir apparent of the second for a decade. And I don't recall any women in the Labour Party challenging Brown. They could have. And isn't Harriet Harman deputy leader?

And there have been plenty of other female premiers - Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and so on. Oh yes, an Australian woman has just been appointed Governor General - how about that?

Surely, if there were no glass ceiling, some other smart, talented woman would have come before them?

There have. You just haven't looked.

Anyway, I'm out now. I suspect arguing gender equality with Quartz is the very definition of "pointless".

That's the statement of a bigot. Your thesis is contradicted by the evidence. I see women succeeding in all fields. They have the opportunity, just as men do.

[hansel]

Do I understand you correctly, Quartz, to be arguing that the historical fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields means that women are demonstrably less suited to those jobs?

[Quartz]

Do I understand you correctly, Quartz, to be arguing that the historical fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields means that women are demonstrably less suited to those jobs?

No. If a woman or a man is suitable for a job, then they should have the same opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of result.

[Invisible Chimp]

No. If a woman or a man is suitable for a job, then they should have the same opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of result.

Given equal ability, shouldn't equal opportunity lead to equality of result?

[Evil Captor]

I'm not sure any of those are valid. Were there better female candidates at the time?

Whatever happenned to being the best person for the job? If the best person is male, then that person should get the job; it's sexist to act otherwise. Clinton lost fair and square, Ferraro lost fair and square, Myers was offered but not appointed. Being female didn't stop Palin becoming a Governor and now VP candidate. Plenty of female judges. There are plenty of female bosses of firms. And so on.

The numbers seem to suggest that most voters think the best person for the job is NEVER a woman. That's what a glass ceiling is.

[hansel]

No. If a woman or a man is suitable for a job, then they should have the same opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of result.

That's neither here nor there--no one is disagreeing with that in principle. What we were discussing is the reason there's a current imbalance in the male/female ratio in many professions.

But is that meaningful? Perhaps men are more suited to such jobs?... It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people's minds. It's the culture of victimhood.

Which I take to mean that you think there are no barriers to women in those fields in which the imbalance exists--no external barriers, at any rate. You suggest that the reason there's an imbalance is that men are more suited to those jobs, while women are more suited to others, like nursing. Is that correct?

[ElvisL1ves]

When a woman wins the Presidency itself, not a token running-mate slot, and when it happens with less childish misogyny on display than we saw this year from the Clinton haters, and when "I just wouldn't vote for a woman" is as contemptible a statement as "I just wouldn't vote for a colored boy", then it will be reasonable to call the ceiling broken. But Palin means no more than Ferraro did, she's just 24 years later.

The ceiling is deeply cracked, thanks to Clinton's work, but remains intact.

[Quartz]

Which I take to mean that you think there are no barriers to women in those fields in which the imbalance exists--no external barriers, at any rate. You suggest that the reason there's an imbalance is that men are more suited to those jobs, while women are more suited to others, like nursing. Is that correct?

No. I'm asking the question, not suggesting anything. A relative was a male nurse for a time FWIW.

[hansel]

No. I'm asking the question, not suggesting anything.

Fine, but you're denying that a glass ceiling even exists:

It seems to me that the only glass ceiling is the one in people's minds. It's the culture of victimhood.

If the glass ceiling is only imagined by those held back by it, it follows that there is no external glass ceiling--meaning no pervasive attitude or systemic features that prevent women from achieving the same heights as men, in some fields, in the same numbers. It's merely that women imagine barriers where none exist.

Do you think that the glass ceiling never existed, or doesn't exist anymore?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

No. If a woman or a man is suitable for a job, then they should have the same opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of result.
How old are you? I ask that not as a putdown but as an inquiry into how much direct personal experience you have with the historical treatment of men versus women in employment (and other areas).

I for one am old enough to recall when the newspaper classified sections ran "Help Wanted - Male" and "Help Wanted - Female" sections, and the stark difference in opportunities offered. I also recall the gradual expansion of "first woman" entering historically male occupations and pursuits, and the huge brouhaha each time some female tried to muscle her way into traditionally male territory. I remember when BAA official Jock Semple in 1967 physically tackled the first woman (http://www.katherineswitzer.com/boston.html) to (semi-)officially run in the Boston Marathon.
About three miles into the race, the press truck caught up to Switzer, who was running with Briggs and her burly boyfriend, Tom Miller. When the photographers noticed a woman in the race with an official number, the cameras started to click. And something clicked inside a BAA official, Jock Semple, who jumped off the truck and ran at Switzer in an attempt to tear off her number.

``Get the hell out of my race and give me that number!'' shouted Semple, one of the race's top competitors during the 1930s.

Fortunately for Switzer, Semple only ripped a tiny corner of her number off. And when he tried again, Miller intervened, laying a shoulder block into Semple that sent the 64-year-old Scotsman sprawling to the pavement.

Semple got back on the press truck. As the vehicle left to rejoin the lead pack, Semple shook his fist and yelled, ``You're in deep trouble!''
I would suggest, if you ain't been there, don't go there.

[Angua]

That's the statement of a bigot. Your thesis is contradicted by the evidence. I see women succeeding in all fields. They have the opportunity, just as men do.

Yeah, we may have the opportunity, and we may be successful, but believe you me, its really not easy. As a successful woman in her field, I'll tell you this much, and this is borne out by the experience of my equally successful female colleagues:

1. We have to work a heck of a lot harder than our male colleagues to achieve the same level of recognition, not just historically, but even now.

2. Having time off to have kids is seen as a weakness and a sign of "not being commited to one's career"

3. Its generally assumed by a lot of people that for couples in my field (and there are quite a few), its the male half of the couple that's the brains behind the outfit and the woman "rides on his coattails".

4. Futher to point 3, its assumed that the woman will be happy to move for her partner's job, but that her partner need not be so happy to move for her job, i.e. her career is secondary. And I know a lot of good and highly successful women for whom this is true and they've had to face the "career or partner" choice, a lot more frequently than men have.

Of course, as a man, you're not going to perceive the glass ceiling, and yes you've had female bosses, but they've been the ones that have managed to break through, and there are still talented and intelligent women who don't get to break through (in my field this is known as the "leaky pipeline", you start off with almost equal numbers of men and women in the field, but by the time they get to the level of permanent positions, the women have been all but pushed out. If there was equality of opportunity this would surely not be happening surely -- the women have up until then proved themselves to be as good if not better than their male colleagues). You might see "women succeeding in all fields", and yes, they do, but not without a lot of struggle and sacrifice to crack that glass ceiling.

[Quartz]

2. Having time off to have kids is seen as a weakness and a sign of "not being commited to one's career"

Why should a business give women credit for taking time off to have kids? They're in the business of making money, not children. As I noted earlier, I'm seeing this myself, as I'm returning to work after an absence. It's not personal, it's not sexist, it's business.

You might see "women succeeding in all fields", and yes, they do, but not without a lot of struggle and sacrifice to crack that glass ceiling.

If you're saying that men don't have to struggle or sacrifice to succeed, you couldn't be more wrong. Very few people of either gender make it to the top.

[Angua]

Why should a business give women credit for taking time off to have kids? They're in the business of making money, not children. As I noted earlier, I'm seeing this myself, as I'm returning to work after an absence. It's not personal, it's not sexist, it's business.

I'm not talking about a drop in pay, I'm talking about getting a job in the first place. Are you asked "so, are you going to be wanting a family any time soon?" Probably not. I know women who have been asked that. That's not business, that's sexist.


If you're saying that men don't have to struggle or sacrifice to succeed, you couldn't be more wrong. Very few people of either gender make it to the top.

And yet, disproportionately, they seem to be men. My boss (a woman) and I tried to name the top people in our field (of which she is ranked in the top 5 in Europe) a couple of months ago. With the exception of her and one other person, they were all men. Are you seriously telling me there's no glass ceiling and its just because we're less qualified? If there was no glass ceiling then surely the numbers should better reflect the gender distribution lower down the chain? It sure as hell doesn't.

[Quartz]

I'm not talking about a drop in pay, I'm talking about getting a job in the first place.

I thought I'd made it clear that I am currently in that position. Evidently not.

Are you asked "so, are you going to be wanting a family any time soon?" Probably not. I know women who have been asked that. That's not business, that's sexist.

No. It's business. It's not personal. Why should I recruit someone who might disappear at short notice? The same thing is said about people who have too many jobs on their CV. It's a business decision, not a personal one.

And yet, disproportionately, they seem to be men. My boss (a woman) and I tried to name the top people in our field (of which she is ranked in the top 5 in Europe) a couple of months ago. With the exception of her and one other person, they were all men.

Maybe I'm abnormal because my brother was a scientist at the Clarendon, but just off the top of my head, there's Heather Couper (former President of the BAA), Jocelyn Burnell (quasars), and Mrs Shoemaker (comets). That's three, and I'm not in the field. And I learned about Hypatia at school.

Are you seriously telling me there's no glass ceiling

I don't believe there is one.

and its just because we're less qualified?

No, apart from ability, you also need the drive, desire, and determination to get the job. Or do you expect jobs to be given on a platter on a quota basis?

Many women succeed; more women don't. Exactly the same can be said for men.

[Gyrate]

I thought I'd made it clear that I am currently in that position. Evidently not.
Sorry - are you saying that because you are and/or have been (fairly or unfairly) in a position subordinate to women, there is no glass ceiling? That's a mighty big generalisation you're wielding there.

Yes, many women have led countries - there's an excellent list here (http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/) (although they also include monarchs in with presidents, prime ministers, etc). I think, though, that the US remains a special case, and until and unless a woman gains the position of POTUS there is always going to be the perception that a woman can't be POTUS.

I do think that Clinton gets a bit too much credit for cracking the ceiling; she is merely the latest of a long line of women politicians to take a crack at it and I do believe that it is thinning on its own over time. You want someone who made a good run at the ceiling, try Shirley Chisholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm), the first black woman elected to Congress who managed to get 152 first-ballot votes at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. That's a pretty good whack at the ceiling right there.

[Quartz]

I thought I'd made it clear that I am currently in that position. Evidently not.
Sorry - are you saying that because you are and/or have been (fairly or unfairly) in a position subordinate to women, there is no glass ceiling? That's a mighty big generalisation you're wielding there.

No, I'm saying that I'm looking for a job and am not currently in employment and my gap in employment is being held against me, just as if I were a woman returning to work after having children.

I think, though, that the US remains a special case, and until and unless a woman gains the position of POTUS there is always going to be the perception that a woman can't be POTUS.

Ah, the perception of a glass ceiling is a different matter entirely. I don't believe there is one, and I think people like Angua set themselves back by believing that there is one.

[Angua]

Maybe I'm abnormal because my brother was a scientist at the Clarendon,
And what, exactly, am I? Or does a scientist at the CEA not live up to your exacting standards?

but just off the top of my head, there's Heather Couper (former President of the BAA),

OK, so that's one.

Jocelyn Burnell (quasars),

Who wasn't given due credit when the Nobel prizes were handed out, faced a hostile work environment at the Cavendish, had to put her own career on hold to follow her husband and only got the recognition she deserved after her divorce (I know Prof. Bell-Burnell, I've talked to her about the issues of women in science on many an occasion, her struggles against the glass ceiling and the struggles of many other women that she's talked to on the same subject.). I know the woman, and your assertation that there is no glass ceiling would have her rolling in the aisles.


and Mrs Shoemaker (comets). That's three, and I'm not in the field.

And I'm telling you that the number of successful men is far far far greater. And in disproportionate numbers to the number of male and female postgraduates and postdocs.

And I learned about Hypatia at school.

Yes, because a 4nd century scholar has so much relevance to right now.



I don't believe there is one.

You wouldn't. You're a man. You don't experience the same discrimination. Its like you saying that racism doesn't exist because you've never experienced it.


No, apart from ability, you also need the drive, desire, and determination to get the job.

Do you know just how many women I know who've worked day and night, who've sacrificed their home lives, who've lived in different countries, different continents, different hemispheres to their spouses/partners/loved ones, who've put off having children till they were in their 40s and had established careers? And who, at the end of the day, have still been denied tenure, permanent positions etc because of their gender? For you to suggest that we don't have the same drive, desire and determination is frankly ridiculous and you know not of what you speak. Speaking for myself, I've had to prove myself to be twice as able, twice as determined, have a longer publication list, be a PI on more international projects, win more international observing time and work longer hours than any man I know at the same stage in my field. I'm think that Jennyrosity's right, and arguing the toss with you on this is like pissing into the wind.

Oh and your assertation that I'm somehow holding myself back due to the perception of a glass ceiling is frankly laughable, which, if you knew me, my work ethic or anything like that, you'd know. I give up, I have papers to write.

[Gary Kumquat]

Was there actually a glass ceiling in the first place?

Not only was there a glass ceiling, but your claims that men are more suited to positions such as a company director and your feeble argument that people doing the equivalent job don't deserve the same salary are great examples of just how the ceiling persists today.

[Quartz]

And what, exactly, am I? Or does a scientist at the CEA not live up to your exacting standards?

I had no idea where you work.

For you to suggest that we don't have the same drive, desire and determination is frankly ridiculous and you know not of what you speak.

I said that you need those qualities as well as raw ability, not that they were lacking in women. And it applies to men just as much as women. No one could accuse Margaret Thatcher, for example, of such, could they? Nor Tony Blair.

I give up, I have papers to write.

I'l treat your contempt with the remark it deserves.

[Angua]

I'l treat your contempt with the remark it deserves.


And I yours. I think that finishes our exchange. No point arguing with the bigoted after all.

[TwistofFate]

Not devils advocate, but an effort to move the conversation forward.

Lets say we pick 100 CEO's appointments, of which 5 are women, 95 are men.

Each person was appointed based on being determineed by those assessing the candidates as the best person available for the job.

Individually, you can say that there is no glass ceiling.

however if you look at the appointments as a whole, it certainly appears top be heavily weighted towards men. would that be evidence enough to suggest the existence of a glass ceiling?

[Marley23]

Why should a business give women credit for taking time off to have kids? They're in the business of making money, not children. As I noted earlier, I'm seeing this myself, as I'm returning to work after an absence. It's not personal, it's not sexist, it's business..
It's not that simple at all. If a business won't hire a woman because they're concerned she'll have children, that's not business, it's personal. If they try to affect the business vs. kids decision, that's not business, it's personal. It's true that being out of the workforce can make it harder to get a job, but that's not the only issue here.

[Quartz]

Not devils advocate, but an effort to move the conversation forward.

...

however if you look at the appointments as a whole, it certainly appears top be heavily weighted towards men.

So what? Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result.

At each step up the pyramid, there are fewer and fewer places. Some people resent that. It's a commonplace that when passed by someone in a swankier car than yours, the American will say, "Someday I'll own that car." whereas the Briton will say, "Rich bastard" or words to that effect. It's a cross between the politics of envy and the victim culture - "X is doing better than me so X must have an unfair advantage."

[TwistofFate]

So what? Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result.



You cut out this sentence "by those assessing the candidates as the best person available for the job."

this is the human nature element of assesing best candidate and it is subject to human bias. Positions are not picked by computer (at least, not until I get the world governments to submit to my will under threat of my doomsday device), and as such there is always a possibility of bias (knowing or unknowing) to influence the decision. This is what leads to a glass ceiling.


At each step up the pyramid, there are fewer and fewer places. Some people resent that. It's a commonplace that when passed by someone in a swankier car than yours, the American will say, "Someday I'll own that car." whereas the Briton will say, "Rich bastard" or words to that effect. It's a cross between the politics of envy and the victim culture - "X is doing better than me so X must have an unfair advantage."

If you're looking for a job, perhaps you should consider becoming a decorator, you'd get efficent results paining with that large brush you wield.

[Quartz]

It's not that simple at all. If a business won't hire a woman because they're concerned she'll have children, that's not business, it's personal.

I disagree: it's a business decision. It helps if you look at businesses as psychopaths. Is it really in the business's interest to hire someone who could disappear at short notice? Same as a job-hopper.

[Gyrate]

Ah, the perception of a glass ceiling is a different matter entirely. I don't believe there is one, and I think people like Angua set themselves back by believing that there is one.
I never said that there wasn't one, and I very firmly believe that there is one. It isn't as low or as impermeable as it used to be, but as long as people are questioning a person's ability to take on a particular role because of their gender then it quite definitely exists. Furthermore, I find your implication that it's all in the victims' minds more than a little insulting.

There's also this:No, I'm saying that I'm looking for a job and am not currently in employment and my gap in employment is being held against me, just as if I were a woman returning to work after having children.
That's a pretty dubious comparison by any standard. You're taking a very specific partial situational and anecdotal comparison and using it to disprove a very big, very broad argument. Yes, you have an employment gap, just like some women. But if you didn't have that gap, would prospective employers hesitate to employ you because you might require a career break at some unspecified time in the future based entirely on your gender or some other trait completely unrelated to your ability to do the job? "Oh, we'd better not hire Quartz - he's got a beard* and might want a year off with pay to sculpt it."

Furthermore (to address an earlier point), just because some women have been elected to office does not negate the existence of gender-based barriers. Margaret Thatcher, for example, achieved her lofty position in spite of the barriers, not because they don't exist.You might well as say that because Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas have reached high office racial discrimination doesn't exist. It's bad logic.

Is it really in the business's interest to hire someone who could disappear at short notice? Same as a job-hopper. But "job-hopping" is an individual trait; it is a pattern of behaviour that a particular person exhibits. Discriminating against all women, on the other hand, is...well, let's put it this way: if any employers think like you do - and they do - then you've just definitively demonstrated that the glass ceiling exists.

* I don't know if you still have the beard or not - it's just an example.

[Marley23]

What Gyrate said. If the end result of your view is that businesses are allowed to refuse to hire a woman, or at least a woman who might have children, on that basis, then you're supporting a glass ceiling.

[Strassia]

Quartz,
The truth is that the glass ceiling in current society is both over and understated. Most of the studies showing are flawed for two reasons:
They do not take into account family choices (time off for birth, choosing shorter hours because of family issues, etc.) Women tend to choose career paths/occupations that pay less such as nurse, teacher, social worker,etc.

Studies that look just in one field tend to find that women without children have little or no wage and advacement gap compared to men.

That said, it really only pushes the question "Why the gender difference?" back one level. While direct discrimination does exist, although it has definitely decreased, the real issues are more societal. Why do more women than man choose career paths that pay less but are more personally fulfilling or flexible? Why are women expected to take more time off from work to raise children? These issues are things that need to be considered on a wider level than the more obvious direct discrination.
To bring this back close to the original topic, look a Sarah Palin. It was considered highly unusual that she went back to work a few days after the birth of her last child. If she was male, it would be normal. California is unusual in that it gives fathers and mothers both six weeks of bonding time with new children (birth or adoption), but even here it is much more common for women to take it.

[Strassia]

The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the "Female" Professions (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aFeL73-lfh0J:jan.ucc.nau.edu/hdh9/e-reserves/Williams_-_The_glass_escalator_PDF-1.pdf+glass+escalator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera)

This was something that I found interesting in a Sociology class a few years ago. I had run into some discrimination when I was volunteer at an elementary school that basically pushed me toward older grades. I think it just goes to show how people's socialized gender attitudes tend to cause the gender gap even when there is no active effort towards gender discrimination.

Jonathan

[Quartz]

Studies that look just in one field tend to find that women without children have little or no wage and advacement gap compared to men.

Ergo no actual glass ceiling.

[Giles]

Ergo no actual glass ceiling.
If:
(1) Women tend to choose careers with lower social status, and
(2) Women with children suffer handicaps in their careers relative to men,
then there is a glass ceiling.

The "glass ceiling" is not an unbreakable barrier, but symbolises the various social factors holding women back from leadership positions.

[Oy!]

Ergo no actual glass ceiling.

You really can't bear to let yourself see it, can you? I can understand that. It was and still is very hard for me to accept the degree of racism there has been too. Only actually, what you've been saying is, yes, there is a ceiling, but it's been for a business reason, a good reason, nothing personal. It's not that you don't like women. It's just that they're inherently less profitable. They haven't earned it, or they're not going to earn it.

For people living in the real world, I don't think the glass celing is cracked. I think it's a sieve or a strainer. Every year, every decade it becomes a little easier for women to slip through. I think we're in the throes of a bit of a throwback at the moment, simply because I think romance is in fashion, hence more societal sexual dimorphism in things like fashion, dancing, etc. But I don't think it's serious or permanent unless the Christian right and/or people like Quartz are able to get a good grip and run with it. Both Clinton and Palin have made a small difference, but not much, any more than Obama has made or will make any real dent in racism. People who hold X-ist views have more room in their philosophy for the occasional exception than they have for the idea that their X-ist views might be wrong. And even better, they have ways of showing you that the X who appears to be succeeding is "actually" failing miserably.

[Strassia]

Ergo no actual glass ceiling.

You missed the second part of my post. To elaborate, the glass ceiling is not a mater of official company policy. That would not be a "glass" ceiling. It has become less and less (at least in most areas) a result of direct discrimination, e.g. promoting men over when because you are afraid they are going to get pregnant (which is what you mentioned). Rather it is due to a social expectation that women put family and relationships first and that men are primary providers who should seek high paying jobs while women are free to seek fullfilment (via family and "nurturing" careers).

What this means in practical terms is that the problem can no longer be addressed by pushing for policy changes of specific companies or sueing for discrimination. It now needs to be addressed by society as a whole. Such things as the UK's parental leave laws are things a government can do, but as long as the general public views the roles of men an women differntly, the glass ceiling is still there.

[hansel]

So what? Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result.

You keep mentioning this as if it explains why, in your view, there is no glass ceiling. It doesn't, and no one is taking issue with the idea in principle. What's being argued here with you is why there is an imbalance. Some are arguing that the glass ceiling is external; you're arguing that it's internal, a matter of perception on the part of women that gives real effect to an imaginary thing.

You still haven't answered my earlier question: do you think there ever was a real (i.e., external) glass ceiling?

[Strassia]

[QUOTE=I think we're in the throes of a bit of a throwback at the moment, simply because I think romance is in fashion, hence more societal sexual dimorphism in things like fashion, dancing, etc. [/QUOTE]

The economy also has something to do with it. Some women are apparently leaving the work force to become house wives (with or without children). Some data suggests that this has more to do with losing a job or not finding the right kind of job(this was about upper middle class college graduates with high earning spouses) and then rationalization taking over.

[Quartz]

You keep mentioning this as if it explains why, in your view, there is no glass ceiling.

Then you are misinterpreting me. Angua was commenting on the different ratios of each gender at her level and the highest levels. Just because the ratio is 50% (or whatever) at her level doesn't mean that it's 50% at other levels.

What's being argued here with you is why there is an imbalance. Some are arguing that the glass ceiling is external; you're arguing that it's internal, a matter of perception on the part of women that gives real effect to an imaginary thing.

Ah right. Yes. Very well put. I see women succeeding left, right, and centre. Men too. It's easy for people to blame their lack of success on external forces, when it's simply down to them.

You still haven't answered my earlier question: do you think there ever was a real (i.e., external) glass ceiling?

In the West, not in modern times.

[Quartz]

You really can't bear to let yourself see it, can you? I can understand that. It was and still is very hard for me to accept the degree of racism there has been too.

It was very hard for me to learn of the extent of racism present in American society, but I learned it from the SDMB. But that's a red herring.

Only actually, what you've been saying is, yes, there is a ceiling, but it's been for a business reason, a good reason, nothing personal. It's not that you don't like women. It's just that they're inherently less profitable. They haven't earned it, or they're not going to earn it.

Umm... no. You're going well beyond what I said.

[hansel]

In the West, not in modern times.What counts, to you, as "modern times"?

[Oy!]

It was very hard for me to learn of the extent of racism present in American society, but I learned it from the SDMB. But that's a red herring.



Umm... no. You're going well beyond what I said.

I may be going beyond what you intended. But that was what I got from what you said, and I don't think I was interpreting what you were saying unreasonably.

And racism vis a vis sexism is not a red herring, and don't think Britain is immune to it! Britain has fewer sub-Saharan Africans and little history of slavery; it makes things easier, but you've got a perfectly nice little history of racism all your own. Check out Vanity Fair for starters. Racism is quite comparable to sexism, except for the little matter that in your mind sexism is often justified (see above) and you can't (or won't) see that just maybe that gets extended to cases where it's not.

The fact is, women are viewed differently from men straight across the board, even here on the boards. How many threads have we read that talk about the idea that men and women just don't think the same way? The worst insults you can fling are all comparisons to woman - a sissy, a pussy, and above all, a c---. One of the highest compliments you can pay a woman is that she's "one of the guys." A girl who dreams of being a boy is a tom-girl. A boy who dreams of being a girl is sick. Even women don't view women as highly as we view men. There's just an automatic assumption that men are the norm, and women are somehow different, starting with the identification of women as a "minority," when we actually constitute a majority of the voters here in the US.

Yes, individual women can work their way up the success ladder. But they have to have much more - whether it's brains, brawn, beauty, luck, hard-work, or some other quality - they have to have an extra something to compete. Because there is a societal prejudice, not just among men, but among women as well, against women. And it's not going to end soon. It will probably take centuries, if it ever ends.

[Cat Fight]

While direct discrimination does exist, although it has definitely decreased, the real issues are more societal. Why do more women than man choose career paths that pay less but are more personally fulfilling or flexible?

Perhaps part of the answer is within your question – because we assume women who take care of the elderly or teach children are getting some sort of natural satisfaction out of their job, or that they've got a second income coming in and don't need the money.

The fact is, women are viewed differently from men straight across the board, even here on the boards.

You're quite right, whether another poster is assumed to be male by default or a female subject's fuckability is questioned. It's disappointing, to say the least.

[Quartz]

I may be going beyond what you intended. But that was what I got from what you said, and I don't think I was interpreting what you were saying unreasonably.

I do.

And racism vis a vis sexism is not a red herring

I disagree.

The fact is, women are viewed differently from men straight across the board, even here on the boards.

So? The thread is about the alleged glass ceiling, not sexism. Britain had a rather bad reputation with regard to sexism.

[Oy!]

So? The thread is about the alleged glass ceiling, not sexism. Britain had a rather bad reputation with regard to sexism.

And I take it it's all better now? :dubious:

[Strassia]

Perhaps part of the answer is within your question – because we assume women who take care of the elderly or teach children are getting some sort of natural satisfaction out of their job, or that they've got a second income coming in and don't need the money.

I agree with you that it is a socialization issue. Take my wife(please don't!), she majored in psychology in undergrad and got a masters in clinical social work. She is now frustrated because there is no real career path to make more money than she does now. We have talked about it at length. She realizes her main motivations were she likes to help people and she always assumed whoever she ended up with would make enough money so her career choice would not matter. She grew up in the 70s and 80s, for reference.

[Strassia]

So? The thread is about the alleged glass ceiling, not sexism. Britain had a rather bad reputation with regard to sexism.

This makes no sense. The glass ceiling is an artifact of sexism. To me, the only real question is whether there is still significant explicit sexism (deciding not to hire/promote a woman because she may have children) or it is just implicit sexism (we are socialized to expect different roles for men and women and put pressure on others to conform).

[Quartz]

And I take it it's all better now? :dubious:

Thoroughly stomped.

ETA: there are always idiots, of course.

[Quartz]

This makes no sense. The glass ceiling is an artifact of sexism.

I disagree. Sexism is personal, whereas the alleged glass ceiling is institutional. And if it were purely sexist, why have women been able to succeed in the past?

[Gary Kumquat]

if it were purely sexist, why have women been able to succeed in the past?

Your entire argument is laughably flawed - there can be no glass ceiling, as some women have been able to succeed in the past.

Discrimination does not have to be absolute to exist. The disproportion in ratios between men and women is so absolutely clear, on so many counts - relative salaries, relative number of each gender in certain roles - that I'm gobsmacked that anyone can look at this issue and contest that not only is there no current prejudice against women reaching seniority in the workplace, but that there never was.

UK statistics:
Female prime ministers - 1 out of 53 (1.8%)
Female MP's since 1918 - 291 out of 4659 (6% (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M04.pdf))
Women directors of FTSE100 companies - 11% (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/EHRC/sexandpower08.pdf)

US statistics:
Female Presidents - 0%
Female board level staff in Fortune 500 companies - 14% (cite (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/369213ac-584f-11dd-b02f-000077b07658.html))

So, let me ask just how you explain this sort of gap? Do you really think that men are 7 times more likely to be good executives? You really think that men are 16 times more likely to be suitable as members of parliament? That no women in the US has ever been better suited to be president than any of the male candidates at that time?

Also, from a company point of view, your argument that it's in a companies interest to discriminate against women as they might have babies is just woefully shortsighted. You want staff, especially senior level staff, as a long term resource. Losing a good member of staff for 6 months to a year is an inconvenience, but one that's trivial compared to the benefits the company reaps over the longer term.

[Nava]

Do you know just how many women I know who've worked day and night, who've sacrificed their home lives, who've lived in different countries, different continents, different hemispheres to their spouses/partners/loved ones, who've put off having children till they were in their 40s and had established careers? And who, at the end of the day, have still been denied tenure, permanent positions etc because of their gender? For you to suggest that we don't have the same drive, desire and determination is frankly ridiculous and you know not of what you speak. Speaking for myself, I've had to prove myself to be twice as able, twice as determined, have a longer publication list, be a PI on more international projects, win more international observing time and work longer hours than any man I know at the same stage in my field. I'm think that Jennyrosity's right, and arguing the toss with you on this is like pissing into the wind.

The line that told me gender-based discrimination still existed in Spain was, during one of my first interviews, being asked what did my boyfriend think about my getting a summer job.

What told me it still existed in the USA was, after a candidate for a tenure-track position with impeccable credentials gave a superb presentation and was able to answer every question posed to her (unlike all the other candidates), hearing one of the professors say he would give her the lowest possible amount of points in every single evaluation item because "wearing a pants suit is so unprofessional!" (this professor still remains the worst-dressed person I've ever met outside of the begging trades) and another professor (jeans and t-shirt) agreeing.

It's been a while since both anecdotes, but claiming that expectations are the same for any person independently of their gender, age, accent, country of origin, country of nationality, religion, mannerisms and size is a self-invitation to the ostriches' area down at the zoo.

[Quartz]

Also, from a company point of view, your argument that it's in a companies interest to discriminate against women as they might have babies is just woefully shortsighted.

Absolutely not true. For a small company, it's a major expense. A larger company can absorb more of the costs, but they still have to employ more people - because some of the women will be off on maternity leave some of the time. More staff for the same income means less profit. The public sector just passes the cost on to the taxpayer, but then they pay less.

You want staff, especially senior level staff, as a long term resource. Losing a good member of staff for 6 months to a year is an inconvenience, but one that's trivial compared to the benefits the company reaps over the longer term.

This is roundly contradicted by all the threads about the lack of company loyalty to staff. And then there are all the threads about beancounters and executives only looking to the next financial report.

It is, unfortunately, an unpleasant truth. But sexism has little to do with the alleged glass ceiling. Guess what? Men have to struggle to be employed and promoted too. They too get marked on their attire at interview. They too have to excel and impress their superiors. They too have to compete in office politics. But they don't get to claim that they didn't succeed because of a glass ceiling.

[Gyrate]

It is, unfortunately, an unpleasant truth. But sexism has little to do with the alleged glass ceiling. Guess what? Men have to struggle to be employed and promoted too. They too get marked on their attire at interview. They too have to excel and impress their superiors. They too have to compete in office politics. But they don't get to claim that they didn't succeed because of a glass ceiling.
No, women have all that AND sexism to deal with. That's the glass ceiling.

Let me reiterate: no one is claiming that men have it easy. No one. But there still exists in many places (and the City in particular is rife with it) a bias against women because they are women. Are you getting this yet? Yes, men have to deal with interviews, office politics and so forth but at no point do the difficulties they encounter have anything to do with their gender. Women have an additional hurdle to get over because there are a lot of men who think that women are inherently less capable.

And yes, some women succeed nonetheless. But as I've said previously, this is despite the barriers they've encountered, not because the barriers don't exist. I don't understand why you find this so difficult to grasp.

[Gary Kumquat]

Absolutely not true. For a small company, it's a major expense. A larger company can absorb more of the costs, but they still have to employ more people - because some of the women will be off on maternity leave some of the time. More staff for the same income means less profit. The public sector just passes the cost on to the taxpayer, but then they pay less.

You might want to try checking your facts first. Funny thing is I am one of the bosses of a very small company, 130 staff worldwide. Maternity costs are negligent to the point of trivia. In the UK (similar rules exist in EU too) in the first 6 months, after reclaiming deductions from NI, cost to the employer is 4.5% of the monthly cost of the employee. After 6 months, it's 0. In the US it's even less of a cost - FMLA just allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave, although employers can (at their discretion) offer paid maternity leave.

So there is no cost to me worth talking about through female staff taking maternity leave. Of course I do have to plan to have staff available for covering such things, but then again I also have to plan for staff cover for holidays, sickness, client visits, trips, yadda - all of which are far tricker to plan for than a fixed duration absence with several months warning.

It is, unfortunately, an unpleasant truth. But sexism has little to do with the alleged glass ceiling. Guess what? Men have to struggle to be employed and promoted too. They too get marked on their attire at interview. They too have to excel and impress their superiors. They too have to compete in office politics. But they don't get to claim that they didn't succeed because of a glass ceiling.

No, it is not an unpleasant truth. It is an unpleasant claim, being made by you in defiance of all reasonable evidence given. How the hell can you dispute that women are at a disadvantage in the workplace when every figure given to you shows that they earn less on average, and are greatly outnumbered in senior positions? You've failed to respond at all to any of the figures I've posted above showing the disparity of role. Do you really think you can just glibly dismiss the facts of the workplace? Come on, why are female board staff outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 in the city? Why is the average pay of a woman working in IT in the UK 20% (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39352947,00.htm) less than the average male pay? How many more examples do you need before you accept that there is a clear, unarguable gap between the status of men and women that can only be explained by a sexual divide?

Does that mean every bloke will succeed? No, no more than every woman will fail - it just means the odds are weighted much more in your favour if you're male, no matter how you try to defend it.

[Cicero]

Doesn't it depend in what field as well. Previous posts have been about politics and business- but say being a jockey, there are less successful female jockeys. Until the last 20 years virtually no opportunities existed. However, even now, they aren't all over the place which is a bit surprising given they are "generally" lighter.

However, it comes to such things as a lower centre of gravity. Those female jockeys who do succeed often have physiques rather than figures.

<Putting away the soapbox>

[Quartz]

You might want to try checking your facts first. Funny thing is I am one of the bosses of a very small company, 130 staff worldwide.

At 130 employees, I'd suggest you're in the medium size range. I was thinking terms of very much smaller companies - 20 employees or less - so I apologise for not being more precise. Anyway, aren't you forgetting the cost of recruiting a temporary replacement? Not only paying the agency, but also the disruption, the time in interviewing, training, getting the employee up to speed etc? As I'm sure you're aware, these are all hidden costs, but costs that still have to be paid. And I'm sure your employees will be glad to hear you call 4.5% a trivial amount.

How many more examples do you need before you accept that there is a clear, unarguable gap between the status of men and women that can only be explained by a sexual divide?

I have already covered that. In case you hadn't spotted it, having left work some time ago and now seeking to return to it, I am faced with a significant drop in salary. It's not sexist at all; it's business. As mentioned upthread, those women who do not take time off for families see no pay disparity.

[Gary Kumquat]

At 130 employees, I'd suggest you're in the medium size range. I was thinking terms of very much smaller companies - 20 employees or less - so I apologise for not being more precise. Anyway, aren't you forgetting the cost of recruiting a temporary replacement? Not only paying the agency, but also the disruption, the time in interviewing, training, getting the employee up to speed etc? As I'm sure you're aware, these are all hidden costs, but costs that still have to be paid. And I'm sure your employees will be glad to hear you call 4.5% a trivial amount.


Seeing as we started with 3 people, I reckon I can talk with authority on the costs faced by very small companies too. If you are a very small company, you can actually recover 104.5% of your salary costs for maternity pay - i.e. the government pays you extra, to the tune of 27% of the annual salary cost of the person in question. I'd say that pretty much covers those hidden costs, wouldn't you? And for a larger company it's a non-issue - you need to have cover for staff anyway, for the factors mentioned above, so having to plan for a 6 month absence of someone when you have 3 months or more to prepare for it is just not even worth factoring in as a possible detriment when you're interviewing candidates.


I have already covered that. In case you hadn't spotted it, having left work some time ago and now seeking to return to it, I am faced with a significant drop in salary. It's not sexist at all; it's business. As mentioned upthread, those women who do not take time off for families see no pay disparity.

Sorry, are you claiming that only women who take time off for family are on a lower salary than their male counterparts? I'd love to see your cite for that...as the research I can find (According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating.) states the opposite:

"According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating."

Or do you reckon that the majority of female graduates are starting families within 3 years of graduation.

Also, I really do want some detailed reasoning for the difference in male/female ratios for all the occupations given above? Or are you saying that it's family choices that are also holding back women in politics?

[Malacandra]

Seeing as we started with 3 people, I reckon I can talk with authority on the costs faced by very small companies too. If you are a very small company, you can actually recover 104.5% of your salary costs for maternity pay - i.e. the government pays you extra, to the tune of 27% of the annual salary cost of the person in question. I'd say that pretty much covers those hidden costs, wouldn't you? And for a larger company it's a non-issue - you need to have cover for staff anyway, for the factors mentioned above, so having to plan for a 6 month absence of someone when you have 3 months or more to prepare for it is just not even worth factoring in as a possible detriment when you're interviewing candidates.




Sorry, are you claiming that only women who take time off for family are on a lower salary than their male counterparts? I'd love to see your cite for that...as the research I can find (According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating.) states the opposite:

"According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating."

Or do you reckon that the majority of female graduates are starting families within 3 years of graduation.

Also, I really do want some detailed reasoning for the difference in male/female ratios for all the occupations given above? Or are you saying that it's family choices that are also holding back women in politics?

Linky no worky, fella. Nor should it, looking at what you've put in the URL.

[Quartz]

Sorry, I'm stepping aside from this one. Too many seem to be mistaking this for misogyny.

[Oy!]

Sorry, I'm stepping aside from this one. Too many seem to be mistaking this for misogyny.

Not misogyny. Willful blindness. Because it's hard to accept that our own hard work alone isn't quite the only reason that we are where we are. We don't want to believe that if everyone else had had the same opportunities as we did, they would have done just as well or better. And, of course, not all of them would have, by any means.

Not everyone suffers equally. Some have more problems than others. Some have more ability to deal with it than others. Some simply have a personality that tends to deflect it. But get it through your head; it's there, and the fact that there are some successful women doesn't change that.

[Gyrate]

Not misogyny. Willful blindness.
^^This. I don't think you're misogynistic at all. I do think you have a tendency to conflate in your arguments the hurdles one has to overcome due to one's individual circumstances with those one has to overcome due to one's gender/race/whatever.

"Having a job gap on your CV" = individual circumstance

"Being a woman and thus having the potential to have a future job gap for maternity leave" = gender-based circumstance

It is reasonable for an employer to reject (or at least think twice about) a candidate for the first reason but not the second. Or, to put it another way, if the criteria for rejection is met when the employer has only read as far as the candidate's name on their CV, there's a problem.

[Strassia]

We also seem to be running into an issue that is common in racism discussions: people not understanding or being unwilling to admit that there is a difference between a systemic discrimination issue and personal prejudice. Just because the individuals involved do not show personal hostility to a group does not mean there is equality of opportunity. As I said earlier, just because no one is saying, or even thinking, "I can't promote/hire this person because a woman can't do the job", does not mean that there are no external factors holding back women.

In the same way even a color blind judiciary can result in racist outcomes due to laws that give harsher sentences to different forms of cocaine. On there face the laws also look color blind, but the outcome is longer average prison sentences for blacks than whites on offences that are largely the same.

[Discordia]

"According to a survey published today women graduates are paid less than their male University classmates within three years of graduating."


I'm sure some of the women are taking time off, you messed up the link though so I don't know how big the difference they're referring to is.

Out of interest, in a world with zero prejudice (including allowances for pregnancy etc), what percent of politicians do you think would be female?

[Oy!]

And then there's the X-ism that is so far below the surface that the person who has it has no idea that it's there. Oh my heavens, I think we all have this. We have certain preconceived expectations of a person based on gender and heritage. Here in the US, how often have many of us been surprised because we have met someone black who had "sounded white" or vice versa? That is very gradually fading away, but the operative word there is gradually, and the key is, how open are employers to having their expectations overturned?

I mean, we all have expectations based on very limited information. We can't help it; humans are unable to function without classifying, and that means stereotyping to a certain extent. This applies to everyone from everyone, and it's absurd to say it should go away, because it can't. It's one of the defining things humans do; we create abstract categories and put things into them, and that includes people. The problem becomes when we get too rigid about those categories, and refuse to recognize that our classification system is not writ in stone, or maybe that's it's entirely mistaken (a very bitter pill to swallow).

What Quartz seems to be doing right now is to be unable or unwilling to see that these people exist, that because some people are able to readjust their classifications, then all must be able to. I think perhaps his classifications need a bit of work themselves. :)

[Strassia]

And then there's the X-ism that is so far below the surface that the person who has it has no idea that it's there. Oh my heavens, I think we all have this. We have certain preconceived expectations of a person based on gender and heritage. Here in the US, how often have many of us been surprised because we have met someone black who had "sounded white" or vice versa? That is very gradually fading away, but the operative word there is gradually, and the key is, how open are employers to having their expectations overturned?

I mean, we all have expectations based on very limited information. We can't help it; humans are unable to function without classifying, and that means stereotyping to a certain extent. This applies to everyone from everyone, and it's absurd to say it should go away, because it can't. It's one of the defining things humans do; we create abstract categories and put things into them, and that includes people. The problem becomes when we get too rigid about those categories, and refuse to recognize that our classification system is not writ in stone, or maybe that's it's entirely mistaken (a very bitter pill to swallow).

What Quartz seems to be doing right now is to be unable or unwilling to see that these people exist, that because some people are able to readjust their classifications, then all must be able to. I think perhaps his classifications need a bit of work themselves. :)

What is really jarring is to come face to face with the flaws in your own classification systems. I had a roommate and good friend who was short, blond, and spoke with a midwestern accent. He was smart, funny, and an all around great guy. Fast foward a few years and I ended up working with his doppelganger. Looked extemely similar, same accent, similar mannerisms, but a compelete ass. No one like the guy, he was self-rightous, full of himself, and not that bright. I felt completely off balance around the guy for months. I expected him to conform to the pattern my roommate had set, but he was completely different.

If I had been interviewing him for a job I would have probably had a favorable impression of him solely based on my previous exeriences. We all make have these unconcious attitudes based on what we have previously experienced. It makes us uncomfortable to admit we are wrong, so we often try to justify them with post hoc logic, but it comes down to the way or brains are wired.

[Oy!]

What is really jarring is to come face to face with the flaws in your own classification systems. I had a roommate and good friend who was short, blond, and spoke with a midwestern accent. He was smart, funny, and an all around great guy. Fast foward a few years and I ended up working with his doppelganger. Looked extemely similar, same accent, similar mannerisms, but a compelete ass. No one like the guy, he was self-rightous, full of himself, and not that bright. I felt completely off balance around the guy for months. I expected him to conform to the pattern my roommate had set, but he was completely different.

If I had been interviewing him for a job I would have probably had a favorable impression of him solely based on my previous exeriences. We all make have these unconcious attitudes based on what we have previously experienced. It makes us uncomfortable to admit we are wrong, so we often try to justify them with post hoc logic, but it comes down to the way or brains are wired.

And the worst of it is, half the time, we have NO idea we're doing it! We don't really we're liking or disliking someone because of our classification. We think it's something specific to them, and as you say, coming up with post hoc justifications for our "intuitions" about a person.

[Gary Kumquat]

I'm sure some of the women are taking time off, you messed up the link though so I don't know how big the difference they're referring to is.

Out of interest, in a world with zero prejudice (including allowances for pregnancy etc), what percent of politicians do you think would be female?

Trying to find that survey again, I'll relink it when I get the URL.

As for what would the percentage be in zero prejudice conditions, that's very hard to say. Sweden seems to manage pretty well, with near zero gender disparity for politicians:

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/CommonPage____18299.aspx

“We have had over ten years’ experience with a nearly gender-equal government and Parliament,” says a very pleased Gertrud Åström. “Do you understand what this means for today’s ten-year olds? For as long as they can remember, politicians and cabinet ministers are just as likely to have been women as men.

...Gertrud Åström conducts research on equal opportunities issues. “Moreover, all these female politicians got to where they are on their own merits, not as the result of statutory allocation of quotas,” she says. “Other countries have had to set formal quotas just to achieve at least a 30 percent female representation, but Sweden has actually had a higher success rate without legislation.”